Comments

Did he think his Yaliness would make his listeners more likely to kowtow to his wonderfulness?

At a time when, apparently, only graduates of Harvard and Yale are to be considered for the Supreme Court, perhaps he wanted to make sure that the Senators (or possibly Trump) knew he was indeed among the eligible.

Yes, the constant repetition about Yale came across as quite creepy and weird - it was supposed to convey that he couldn't be the hard-drinking fuckup they were suggesting, but anybody who's known or been a student knows this doesn't follow. The other trope he kept returning to, again and again, of how the four other people all denied the existence of such a party, also came across as creepy and rehearsed. He must have said it, in almost the same words, at least 10 times, and after the first couple I think it had the opposite effect (at least on those who weren't his partisans) than the one he hoped. By the end, he was even using it at inappropriate times, where it didn't really make any sense as an answer to what he had been asked. I think the delay is going to damage his chances, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I would bet a large sum of money, or stake a body part, on the fact that she is telling the truth. It's possible that he was so drunk he doesn't remember the event, but she is telling the truth.

I agree with the first sentence.

As to the second sentence, it was partly the drunkenness, but also possibly the insignificance. I think a lot of people would not have realized that it was a biggie to terrorize someone in that way. I mean, he didn't leave any marks, probably, and there was no penetration.

I think that a lot of women [and I'm speaking about women here, not male survivors, because of the general cultural expectations placed on women and girls of that era, and the fact that I don't know whether this is true of men and boys] dismissed the insults delivered to them in the same way that Brett Kavanaugh might have. Except for the effect that it had on them: maybe they weren't traumatized in the same way as Dr. Ford had been, but their sense of self-worth was eroded. Their expectations of men were diminished. Their understanding of how they had to behave in the future was altered.

I don't think any of this can be measured, and I don't know whether I'm overstating it. I'm just glad that people are more aware of it now. On the other hand, I don't know how much better things really are. There were always men who behaved honorably, and other men likely to engage in this kind of behavior. I'm hoping that the latter category are, these days, more inclined to think twice.

At a time when, apparently, only graduates of Harvard and Yale are to be considered for the Supreme Court, perhaps he wanted to make sure that the Senators (or possibly Trump) knew he was indeed among the eligible.

They/we all already knew that. I think the repetition (of that and other things) was because he was rehearsed to stick to certain themes, and to avoid answering certain questions. The exact form of the things he repeated is a separate puzzle piece.

Or: it wasn't so much "eligibility" he was pushing as his Yale-bestowed right to the seat.

I am reminded of one other notable feature from yesterday. Nobody, at least no Senator, is willing to say flat out that he thinks Dr Ford lied. For example, Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “I find no reason to find her not credible.” And yet, they are voting to confirm Kavanaugh anyway.

In other words, they are following the approach that Kevin Cramer (Republican candidate running against Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota) made explicitly: "Even if it's all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago. But does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?"

In other words, so what if he did try to rape her, we don't care. (Nor do we care that he has lied about it during his confirmation hearing.) Disgusting.

He was testifying to the TV. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn't happen.

Late in the hearing Senator Harris said that Ms. Ford had come before them with credible testimony and :corroborating evidence". She tried to sneak that in but it was simply a lie, the only way to overcome that lie from a Senator who states it as fact is to repeatedly point out that no one has corroborated her story, in fact they have corroborated his recollection.

As often end and loudly as possible. It wasn't weird at all except to partisans trying to find everything wrong with his testimony.

He was testifying to the TV. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn't happen.

This is entirely untrue, but it's not surprising you believe it because Kavanaugh kept saying it. He kept saying they "refuted" it, which is laughable, in the context:

But Keyser also personally told the Washington Post that, while she cannot remember the gathering taking place or having met Kavanaugh, she believes Blasey’s testimony. This did not stop Kavanaugh and Republicans from twisting Keyser’s statements that she can’t remember into an exonerating statement that implies the events never happened at all.

You have 3 people who say (not under oath and subject to cross questioning) that they don't remember the incident. And one (who happens to be Kavanaugh himself) who says it didn't happen. That's just a huge step away from "4 people refute the charge."

Marty needs to look up "corroborate" in some English-language dictionary. His English-to-Republican translation software seems to render "corroborating" as "dispositive". Not to mention "unproved" as "refuted".

Sane people and Trump partisans. Two nations separated by a common language.

Marty is the one true non-partisan, coming into our partisan bubble to try, and try, and try to help us into the light. He would never dream of parroting Republican, much less Fox news, talking points.

Feinstein’s comment was confirmed by the reporter who first published the story about Ford’s letter. “Feinstein’s staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept,” Ryan Grim, the bureau chief at the Intercept, and author of the original story, tweeted.

Some folks here need to 'man up' as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.

Apologies for the long quote, but maybe folks might not get this on Facebook...

You know about the Whelan debacle. A far-fetched series of conjectures all leading to pointing the finger of blame at a classmate at Kavanaugh’s school. That was crazy for all the reasons we thought it was crazy – not least a highly trained lawyer brazenly libeling an innocent person. Remember too that Whelan worked with the Federalist Society’s PR firm. There’s also good reason, though not hard proof, to believe Leonard Leo, Federalist Society chief was also involved. Whelan blamed a then-boy named Christ Garrett.

Garrett happened to be a good friend of Kavanaugh’s at the time and was Blasey Ford’s boyfriend at the time of the alleged attack.

Think about this. If you are working from records of where people lived at the time, what are the odds that of all Kavanaugh’s classmates you’d come up with one of Kavanaugh’s friends and the friend who was actually going out with Blasey Ford at the time? Whelan just happened upon the connection which actually brought Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh together? Not likely.

I would suggest that there’s virtually no chance that is a coincidence.

Of course they’re connected. And the connection almost certainly stems from Kavanaugh’s recollections. Kavanaugh says not only that he doesn’t remember the alleged attack but that he doesn’t have any recollection of Blasey Ford at all. They weren’t even in the same social circles, he claimed. She went to a school that didn’t have a lot of overlap with his. And yet, when his friend and top nomination advisors came up with an alternative theory of the crime they picked her then boyfriend? That is not an accident. This fact needs to be investigated just as much as the alleged assault because it is highly likely that shows Kavanaugh’s knowledge and I suspect, if looked at closely, will show real evidence of Kavanaugh’s consciousness of guilt.

Pro Bono, I don't really know, of course. But if he drank as much as it seems he did in high school, right there is evidence of a practice and pattern established of presenting a certain front to the world (i.e. the adults) that masked the persona that lived behind the choirboy facade.

And it worked. I remember some reference yesterday to how often he was grounded, which (the info behind the reference) must have come from the calendar, but in general it seems that the adult world accepted the high-achieving choirboy persona, and that persona wasn't even false. He did get into Yale, after all. You don't get into Yale without knowing how to present yourself well and plausibly, and with some truth to the presentation. It isn't that the choirboy was a myth, it's just that it wasn't the only side of BK.

But that (except for the Yale part) just makes him a pretty garden-variety teenager. I was as goody-goody a child as you could find anywhere, and yet when I got to a certain point in adolescence, I started sneaking around doing things I didn't want my parents to know about, and framing the account of how I spent my time in a way that was meant to deceive them. (This had to do with who I was hanging around with, and sex. Nothing illegal, except the one time I got drunk, which cured me forever. And even then I was out of high school when it happened.)

My guess about his bringing the calendar out now is that he has had a lifetime of people accepting him at the value of the face he chooses to present. If it has worked for all these years, why shouldn't it work now? He's so smart, after all, he got into Yale, and he can twist the truth, evade the facts, and explain away suspicious appearances with the best of them.

First, I will respond to lj. I believe she was molested. Perhaps, no where near certainly, by Kavanaugh. I believe she is 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. Innocent people have spent lifetimes in prison on 100% certain testimony.

There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.

Just as I've said for some number of days.

He testified like father, son and husband whose life and reputation had been wrecked by one unsubstantiated charge.

I hope no one ever has to go through what shes been through.

The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.

His life hasn't been 'wrecked' any more than Merrick Garland's life was 'wrecked' by not getting a seat on the Supreme Court.

Not every nominee is guaranteed acceptance. People withdraw themselves. People are found less-than-ideal.

This isn't a criminal trial. He's not facing a prison term (unless she decides to go forward with a rape allegation which, under Maryland law, has no statute of limitations and could see him perp-walked out of the SC in handcuffs his first day on the job).

Worst case scenario, he remains a high-ranking federal court judge, or bails on the government payroll and takes a higher-paid position as a news commentator for Fox or private practice at a law firm.

His life is not over no matter what happens.

It's OK to believe he's both innocent of the crime for which he is charged and that his conduct, past and present, is indicative of a character unsuited to sit as a magistrate in the country's highest court. There have been more than enough lies, proven lies, utterly bald-faced, brazen lies to come out of his mouth in his own confirmation hearing pre-Dr. Ford's testimony and his own attempted rebuttal, to make it clear he has no business there.

I hope no one ever has to go through what shes been through.

You may hope that no one ever has to go through what she's been through, but I'm sorry to break it to you: millions of women share her story. Your hope isn't good enough. It hasn't been good enough for your entire life. It won't be good enough from here on out.

From here on out, you have a choice: you can 'hope' nothing like this happens to anyone else, and maintain the status quo, or you can listen to the women telling you, repeatedly, over and over, that this is their story too, and think, "What message could I help send that this isn't cool? I know--I could believe them."

That's step one. There are roughly twenty five million steps to go after that, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Are you willing to start walking, or is it more comfortable to sit at the good ol' boy table and ignore the ruckus?

Don't give women like us your 'hope'. Give us your backing, give us your attention, give us a sign of respect--anything to let us know you hear us, sympathize, and understand our rage and our grief. And if you can't do that, then give yourself a pat on the back for being brave enough not to disturb the universe, and sit back down in your seat while someone else does all the heavy lifting.

It's OK to believe he's both innocent of the crime for which he is charged and that his conduct, past and present, is indicative of a character unsuited to sit as a magistrate in the country's highest court. There have been more than enough lies, proven lies, utterly bald-faced, brazen lies to come out of his mouth in his own confirmation hearing pre-Dr. Ford's testimony and his own attempted rebuttal, to make it clear he has no business there.

He's not facing a prison term (unless she decides to go forward with a rape allegation which, under Maryland law, has no statute of limitations and could see him perp-walked out of the SC in handcuffs his first day on the job).

Sadly, he's not at risk over the attempted rape. Period.

Maryland law has no statue of limitation NOW. But the relevant law is what prevailed in the early 1980s. When sexual assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors (yes, really!), with a statue of limitations of one year -- which is now long past.

Of course, there's always perjury. But he's free of criminal liability for the rape attempt itself even if it is proved that he tried to rape her.

Marty: There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.

I have to confess that Marty is actually correct to say that.

Of course, Dr. Ford has offered evidence that she believed her story was true some years ago -- a few years closer to the event. So if she has believed her story for some years, I wonder when she first started to remember things wrong. When she got her PhD? While a junior in college? The morning after the event? (Or, as Kavanaugh would have it, the non-event?) Or when?

I think Marty should ask himself that question, but nevertheless: I apologize for thinking he had said something different from the above.

I am also willing to give Jeff Flake credit for not being a complete wuss. Lindsey Graham, on the other hand ...

As nicely as I can, I come from a family where sexual abuse was the norm. 4 kids all sexually abused by the age of 9. I can assure you my story is more graphically difficult than Ms. Fords and my sisters got the worst of it.

I have no problem believing her story as I've stated fucking multiple times. Take your internet winning smartass advice and shove it.

I make no assumptions about your personal experience, but if it doesn't include holding your 8 year old sister as she cries herself to sleep after being used by her stepfather then take a few steps to catch up.

My wish that no one experiences what Ms Ford has may be more closely held than you imagine.

Marty, I'm sorry you had to go through whatever emotions were provoked in having to remind us of your personal experiences. I have no doubt about your own personal kindness and humanity in these matters. I would just ask you to think about us, and our personal qualities too, instead of turning us into cartoon partisan lefties in your head (I don't dispute that you are sometimes turned into a cartoon partisan rightie on this blog).

It's true that we're all very incensed about the extraordinary breaking of norms over Merrick Garland, but cast your mind back: we didn't partake in this kind of discussion about Gorsuch. The re-balancing of the court to the right, against the wishes of the majority of the American people, is not our main concern here (although it is a concern). You said above that EVERYBODY she named said it didn't happen. You said it because Kavanaugh said it, but he was lying (and not for the first time in his confirmation hearings). He is a weasel, and a liar, and unfit to sit on your SCOTUS for these and other reasons. Trump nominated him, against Republican advice, because of a calculation that his road to Damascus conversion after Starr means he will almost certainly try to protect Trump from criminal charges, and that self-interested calculation by Trump is what has enabled this whole circus. It is just a great shame that the emotive issue of sexual abuse has driven you and us into unfair accusations and characterisations when our normal political differences do that more than well enough already.

Merrick Garland was discussed during Gorsuch, not as much. But memories are short. Merrick Garland was used in the campaign by both sides and was a good Democratic talking point, with every expectation President Clinton would get to pick a more progressive judge once elected.

I thought he should have been given s hearing just for that reason. Imagine my relief on that single front when Trump won. But Gorsuch replaced Scalia, there was opposition but the balance that people were used to was maintained, Roe was still safe.

Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a whole different kettle of fish. It seems to put Roe in jeopardy, it makes the court firmly conservative and Federalist. It makes Robert's the swing vote. That's why all this is happening.

You believe bad things about Kavanaugh, I think they are exaggerated by the emotion of the moment. Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here. It is not that it shouldn't be Kavanaugh, it shouldn't be anyone like Kavanaugh.

I dont believe he should be subjected to public humiliation because he creates a court that you (generic you) are afraid of. I would be just as afraid of any candidate a President Clinton would have nominated.

That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not, but I would be panicked to have to think about Justice Ginsbergs opinions being the majority.

That panic by the left is driving the ferocity of this dissent and, imo, making Kavanaugh a monster is required to maintain the rationalization of a fair appraisal.

Our political differences are clear, but, now to the line I quote above. No I said it because it is true. Everyone including the person she said she went with declares either they remember no such event or that they do remember it never happened.

It is a legitimate question as to whether she remembers the events accurately. For just a second let me describe an experience I had that makes me believe you can question it.

At 6 my next door neighbor, I think he was, I wouldnt have known to call him that at the time, was packing his car as they were moving out. I wandered over to the edge of my yard to watch what he was doing, I dont remember whether I had ever met him before. So he said come on over and let me show you something.

He started what I now surmise was a practiced act, by asking me, at 6, if I had ever seen my parents have sex. It was not my first exposure to the subject but I immediately knew something was off. As he started rubbing me with one hand he started showing we pictures of what he said was pictures of he and his wife having sex pointing out the details asking if I liked them.

I have no idea, by that time my brain had started turning off, everything seemed foggy. I couldn't focus on the pictures, I have no idea other than his description what they were and I was already waiting for this to be over. I remember bits and pieces of the next 10 minutes, a time frame I've reconstructed that could be wildly off, but I have no 100% clear memory after that initial realization of what was happening.

I didn't scream or cry, I didn't tell anyone for sure, and occasionally I've wondered how much I just dont remember because I dont want to. That fog that set in, that refusal to deal with it, that mental requirement to reconstruct what happened later is powerful. It was not the last time I would experience it, unfortunately the most horrible of things get less frightening as you survive them, but it isl how I hear her telling her story. The reconstructed bits and pieces put together later. Thats why there are holes that seem incongruous to others (how did she get home?) That dont seem incongruous to me at all. But it means she could easily have substituted some identifiable person in the reconstruction, even six weeks later when she saw Mark Judge and felt like he "looked" guilty. Which makes no sense based on the rest of the description.

I am not a psychologist, nor do I know specifically how she felt or reacted or why she remembers the things she does. Her description tells me she experienced the kind of mental withdrawal I experienced, so I know how those memories can be affected.

My sympathy for her is immense, I believe she believes every detail as she describes it, I believe she could be mistaken.

I have a whole bunch more complicated thoughts on thus overall, I dont think any of it is simple.

Marty, the withdrawal you describe is indeed very common in such cases. You were 6 of course, and she was 15, and she says she remembers the actual attack perfectly and is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh, and I (and maybe even you) believe her. That she does not remember how she got home is hardly surprising, under the circumstances, and even how she got there in the first place, since nothing untoward had yet taken place to make the event any more memorable than it was to the other (uninvolved) people. Kavanaughs characterisation of Leland's "refutation" is a flat out lie: she says she doesn't remember, but she says she believes Ford.

Your discussion of the difference between the balance to the court in the cases of Gorsuch versus Kavanaugh is fair enough (from a Republican perspective of course), and I'm sure we would be having extremely heated arguments about anybody that Trump had nominated to succeed Kennedy, but we wouldn't be having this particular argument.

I too have a whole bunch more complicated thoughts on this, and I guess that applies to many of us. But mischaracterising you (or us) and our attitudes to sexual abuse, does not help. Peace to you, Marty.

First, I think I speak for everyone when I say the circumstances of your childhood sound horrible. I am, sincerely, sorry you had to live with that.

To substance:

Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here. It is not that it shouldn't be Kavanaugh, it shouldn't be anyone like Kavanaugh.

It's a long thread and I'm not going to go back and count the number of times I suggested that Trump nominate someone else. Of those times, I suggested a moderate nomination one time. My suggestions were Kethledge or Hardiman, both justices already on Trump's short list, both justices who are, staunchly and famously, conservative Federalists.

My primary objection to Kavanaugh is his history as a partisan activist. SCOTUS justices have points of view, and we all recognize and accept that. What we do not want from the folks on the SCOTUS bench, or any bench, are explicit partisan actors.

That has been my argument, throughout this very long thread. You can look it up.

Kindly do not change the things I say to suit your argument.

That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not

I dont believe he should be subjected to public humiliation because he creates a court that you (generic you) are afraid of. I would be just as afraid of any candidate a President Clinton would have nominated.

That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not, but I would be panicked to have to think about Justice Ginsbergs opinions being the majority.

You might be just as afraid of any candidate that Clinton would have nominated, but the majority of your countrymen would not have been.

Regarding the list of changes you believe would have ensued, they are exaggerated to the point of parody (which admittedly you acknowledge with "Or maybe not", but I would point out, as an example, about the item I have bolded that the economy at the end of Clinton's administration rather puts the lie to that claim at least, not to mention the upswing which was already taking place at the end of Obama's, and for which Trump is eagerly claiming credit.

This Clinton is not that Clinton, the parody is a mirror of the parody from the left of the courts positions and their effect. If anything I have understated the damage a Ginsberg court could do while the downside of a conservative court is constantly overstated.

Last year in November I gladly agreed that Trump really hadn't had much to do with actual economic activity yet, but we are now past the point of giving Obama credit for this economy.

It is expanding in ways Obama never succeeded in accomplishing, particularly in rising real wages across the board. While somehow it seems, basked on some complaints, the fact that they are rising even more for the poor and minority communities is a problem.

And, yes, the continued and broadened, note the recognition that Obama managed to allow the economy to grow, expansion of the economy is now Trumps accomplishment.

In fact, there is a reasonable argument that his regulatory changes may go too far in support of it, that's a more valid criticism than he hasn't accomplished it. To pretend his policies havent increased business activity is simply not wanting to give him credit for anything.

Sorry russell, it has been a long thread and you had mentioned short list candidates above. I didn't really need to reference you for my point to be accurate anyway. So my apologies.

FWIW, I believe if you look at the graph of the improvement in the economy it is a clear and pretty smooth continuation upwards since before the end of the Obama presidency. But, as I have often said, economics are not my thing, and I am prepared to be contradicted. This Clinton was not that Clinton, but (again FWIW) Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by that Clinton!

US average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to USD 27.16, or 0.4 percent, in August 2018, following an unrevised 0.3 percent gain in July and above expectations of a 0.2 percent gain. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 77 cents, or 2.9 percent, the largest increase since June 2009, from 2.7 percent in July. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to USD 22.73 in August. Average Hourly Earnings in the United States averaged 0.20 percent from 2006 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 0.60 percent in June of 2007 and a record low of -0.20 percent in August of 2011.

ActScully, since I now get my income from a partnership on a k-1 I will get a fairly significant tax rate cut. I dont make all that much being a minority partner but it has allowed us to hire 2 additional people this year(5 total) because, tax cut.

So at least 3 or 4 of us will enjoy it in what I consider pretty generically positive ways.

I have no reason to disbelieve Marty's memories of his childhood. We have no "corroboration" for his stories except his own testimony, but I am not inclined to demand "proof".

What I want to know is whether Marty would be pissed off under the following circumstances:

That creepy neighbor went on to law school, went to work for the Clinton Foundation as a ratfucker, and got nominated to the pivotal seat on the SCOTUS by President Sanders. Marty, recognizing his face on TV, came out with his story. Libruls, lusting after unlimited abortions and gun control and job-killing regulations, told Marty "There, there, we believe something happened to you, but we refuse to let the FBI investigate. I mean, how could they uncover any facts all these years later?"

A brief announcement, I'm closing the comments on this thread and I've started a new one on Kavanaugh. I'm doing this for a number of reasons and if anyone feels this is unfair, feel free to discuss this offlist by emailing the kitty.